Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/54/2021

Mahender - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam - Opp.Party(s)

Sant Kumar

09 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,FATEHABAD.

                                                           Complaint No.54 of 2021.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 09.02.2021.

                                                           Date of Decision: 09.05.2024.

 

Mahender son of Puran resident of Jakhal Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

 

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Tohana District Tohana.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, Dakhsin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Jakhal Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                             …Opposite parties.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

BEFORE:             Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.

                             Smt. Harisha Mehta, Presiding Member.

                             Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member

 

Argued by:            Sh.Sant Kumar, Adv. for the complainant.

                             Sh.Dushyant Gera, Adv. for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

                            

1.                          The complainant has filed this complaint against the    OPs with the averments that there is a domestic electric connection bearing No.DV1D-0297A in the name of father of the complainant namely Puran installed at village Jakhal Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad and the Ops are bound to give uninterrupted electricity supply to the complainant regularly; that now the Ops have issued a bill to the complainant whereby  an amount of Rs.72299/-, payable on 07.01.2021, has been demanded; that in the said bill an amount of Rs.71536/- has been shown as sundry wrongly and illegally because the complainant has never been found indulging in theft of electricity; that the complainant is living in a small house and the electricity bill cannot be more than Rs.300-Rs.400 per month; that neither the complainant has been heard nor any notice under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 issued to him; that the complainant requested the Ops to treat the said bill as null and void but they refused to do so and even they are bent upon to recover the said amount forcibly; that the act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                          The OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, estoppal, concealment of material facts and jurisdiction etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that the meter of the complainant was changed on 27.06.2019 and at the time of removing of meter the reading was found as 19087 whereas the complainant had made the payment  of the consumed unit upto 7588; that the complainant is bound to make the payment of 11499 units, therefore, the amount of Rs.71536/- was added as sundry charges in respect of those units; that there is no illegality in the bill and complainant instead of making the billed amount has filed the present complaint by concealing the material facts. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3                           The complainant has tendered affidavit and document Ex.CW1/A, Annexure C1 whereas the Ops have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A with documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5 in evidence.

4.                          Heard. We have examined the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully.

5.                          The complainant has come with the plea that the Ops have sent the bill to the tune of Rs.72299/- (Annexure C1) wherein an amount of Rs.71536/- being sundry charges has been added wrongly and illegally and despite his several requests the Ops did not correct the same and even they are bent upon the recover the same by using coercive method. On the other hand the Ops have come with the plea that meter of the complainant was changed on 27.06.2019 and at the time of removing of meter the reading was found as 19087 whereas the complainant had made the payment of the consumed unit upto 7588, therefore, he is bound to make the payment of 11499 units, therefore, amount of Rs.71536/- was added as sundry charges in respect of those units and the complainant is liable to make the payment of the consumed units.

6.                          Perusal of Annexure R1 (Meter Change Order) reveals that the reading at that time was 19087 and Annexure R2 reveals that the connection was declared PDCO when the complainant had not made the payment thereof. Perusal of the case file reveals that the electricity connection was restored when the complainant had made the payment to the tune of Rs.28920/- being 40 % of the disputed amount i.e. Rs.72999/- as per the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by this Commission. Learned counsel for the complainant stressed hard on the point that the Ops cannot charge any sundry amount from the complainant because the status of the meter has been shown as defective and in support of his contentions he has placed on case file account statement of his electricity meter. Perusal of this document reveals that the status of the meter has been shown as “D” for period 12.11.2018, 10.1.2019, 07.03.2019, 13.05.2019 and 09.07.2019. The Ops have come with the specific plea that the meter was burnt at the time of removing and the reading was noted as  19087 and the amount of Rs.71536/- was added on the basis of audit report keeping in view the recorded readings in the burnt meter. In support of his contentions he has placed on file copy of instruction No.4.15 wherein at point No.2 it has been mentioned that it is a regular feature in the Electricity Board that Audit parties audit the consumer’s account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the audit party. The meter was changed on 27.06.2019 and the present complaint was filed on 09.02.2021 and notice for making the payment of Rs.71536/- for the balance unit to the complainant was issued on 16.07.2020 and before sending this notice to the complainant audit was done and copy thereof has been placed on case file as Annexure R4.  The fact qua removing of meter was in the knowledge of the complainant, therefore, it can be easily presumed that the complainant was well aware of the fact that the cause of changing/removing the meter was burnt being dead. Another strange factor which this Commission has noticed that the complainant has not even moved any application on the case file to get the burnt meter checked from any lab and even not requested the Ops to fix the check meter to verify and compare the units for the period when the meter was stated to be burnt. It is a settled principle of law that he who seeks equity must to equity with others but in the present complaint the complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing the material facts from this Commission. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the present complaint deserves dismissal.  The case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant titled as Anwar Auto Works Vs. The Secretary 2000 (1) CLT Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, K.Ramanjaneyalu Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) 1999 (3) CCC 586 (Karnataka), Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. 2001 91) CCC 001 (SC) and DHBVN Vs. Amarjit Singh Chadha RSA No.3291 of 2007 (O&M) decided by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on 21.1.2010  are not applicable to the case in hand, therefore, same are being distinguished.

7.                          On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of any of the Ops, as alleged, so as to make any of them liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  All the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 09.05.2024

 

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                    (Harisha Mehta)         (Rajbir Singh)                        

              Member                               Member                              President